Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 21STCV10823, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV10823, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) requests that the court issue a protective order (1) that Defendant need not respond to the Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatories served on it by plaintiff John Christian Lukes (“Plaintiff”) and that this discovery be deemed withdrawn, and (2) that, to reduce the undue burden and expense on Defendant, Plaintiff may only serve on Defendant (i) 35 special interrogatories, (ii) 35 requests for admission, and (iii) 50 requests for production.

As a threshold matter, the court finds that Defendant was not required to file a separate statement in support of this motion as argued by Plaintiff in his opposition. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a) [excluding from motions that require a separate statement a motion for a protective order].)

Defendant has submitted evidence showing that Plaintiff served it with over 500 discovery requests, consisting of 236 special interrogatories, 124 requests for admission, 156 requests for production of documents, and 27 form interrogatories.[1] (Crain Decl., Exs. B [Special Interrogatories], C [Requests for Admission], D [Requests for Production of Documents], E [Form Interrogatories—General].) Counsel for Defendant has stated, without accounting for the costs for a more senior attorney’s review, that “it would take [an associate attorney] at least 85 hours to respond to Plaintiff’s . . . written discovery requests (not including form interrogatories)[,]” which would amount to “at least $34,000 just to provide responses” thereto at the hourly rate of $400. (Crain Decl., ¶ 11.) Moreover, Defendant has pointed out that Plaintiff defined “YOU” in the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to mean not only Defendant, but also defendant Wells Fargo & Company, such that Plaintiff has requested that Defendant answer for both itself and Wells Fargo & Company. (Crain Decl., Ex. B, Special Interrogatories, p. 2:5-7; Crain Decl., Ex. D, Req. for Production, p. 3:7-8.)

The court has considered the complexity of the remaining issues in this action, including the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and the court’s August 7, 2024 order granting Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action and claim for punitive damages. (FAC filed Jan. 24, 2022; Aug. 7, 2024 Order, p. 31:16-19.) The court finds, upon consideration of those issues and the needs of this case, that the Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatory number 17.1 (requesting information regarding up to the 124 requests for admission) served on Defendant are unduly burdensome. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (b), 2033.080, subd. (b), 2031.060, subd. (b).) The court therefore finds that Defendant has shown good cause to issue a protective order that it need not respond to that discovery. (Ibid.) The court, however, denies Defendant’s request that the court order that Defendant is not required to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—General, Set One, with the exception of number 17.1, because the other interrogatories are not unduly burdensome. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (b).)

The court will therefore issue a protective order that (1) Defendant is not required to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatory, number 17.1, (2) Plaintiff shall be permitted to serve on Defendant (i) a reasonable number of special interrogatories, not to exceed 70 interrogatories, (ii) a reasonable number of requests for admission, not to exceed 70 requests, and (iii) a reasonable number of requests for production of documents, not to exceed 70 requests.

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.

The court grants in part defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion for protective order as follows.

The court orders that defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not required (1) to serve responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on it by plaintiff John Christian Lukes on May 30, 2024, (2) to serve responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on it by plaintiff John Christian Lukes on May 30, 2024, (3) to serve responses or produce documents responsive to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, served on it by plaintiff John Christian Lukes on May 30, 2024, and (4) to serve a response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, number 17.1, served on it by plaintiff John Christian Lukes on May 30, 2024.

The court orders that plaintiff John Christian Lukes may serve on defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (1) a reasonable number of special interrogatories, not to exceed 70 interrogatories, (2) a reasonable number of requests for admission, not to exceed 70 requests, and (3) a reasonable number of requests for production of documents, not to exceed 70 requests.

The court orders defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to give notice of this ruling.

[1] Defendant does not appear to take issue with the number of form interrogatories, but rather that form interrogatory number 17.1 is burdensome because it will require Defendant to state, for up to 124 requests for admission, the facts on which Defendant bases any response that is not an unqualified admission.

john christian lukes ; Plaintiff, vs. wells fargo bank, n.a. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV10823

	Hearing Date:	March 3, 2025

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: defendant’s motion for protective order